Mosnu Ahmed Chowdhury v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, an extended family member who relies on regulation 8(2)(c) must prove that dependency on the EEA-national sponsor has continued without interruption. It is insufficient to prove dependency before arrival in the United Kingdom and renewed dependency at a later date.

This construction accords with Article 3(2) of the Citizens Directive. That provision facilitates, but does not automatically confer, residence for other family members. It protects close and stable family ties founded on genuine and stable dependency, rather than creating a general family-reunion right.

The appellant, a Bangladeshi national, applied for a residence card as the extended family member of his great-uncle, an EEA national exercising Treaty rights in the United Kingdom.

The First-tier Tribunal accepted that he had been dependent on, and a member of the household of, the EEA national in Bangladesh. It found, however, that there was no evidence of dependency or household membership between 2011 and late 2014 or early 2015, and dismissed the appeal.

Following a successful judicial-review challenge to the refusal of permission to appeal, the Upper Tribunal considered whether regulation 8(2)(c) required an unbroken period of dependency.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law in concluding that the appellant was not an extended family member under regulation 8(2)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.
2. Regulation 8(2)(c) has three requirements. The applicant must previously have satisfied regulation 8(2)(a), must have joined the EEA national in the United Kingdom, and must continue to be dependent on that national or be a member of that national’s household.
3. The word “continues”, read in the context and purposes of the Citizens Directive, requires dependency to have remained unbroken. A construction allowing historic dependency followed by a lapse and later renewed dependency would deprive that word of effect.
4. Article 3(2) facilitates entry and residence for other family members but does not create an automatic right of residence. Its purpose is to preserve close and stable family ties associated with genuine and stable dependency. Member States may impose requirements concerning the nature and duration of dependency, provided that they remain effective and consistent with the ordinary meaning of dependency.
5. There was an unexplained and substantial break in dependency from 2011 to 2014 or 2015. The appellant was found to have been self-sufficient during that period. He therefore did not continue to be dependent on the sponsor, and the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to dismiss the appeal.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): appeal dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s dismissal.
• Judicial-review proceedings: permission to bring judicial review was granted. The decision refusing permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was quashed, and permission to appeal was granted.
• First-tier Tribunal: appeal against refusal of a residence card dismissed on 29 October 2018.